1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT GWALIOR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE

WRIT PETITION No.6580 of 2023

Between:-

1.

SMT. SAHANAJ KHAN W/O LATE SHRI

KARIM KHAN, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,

OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE, R/O VILLAGE

HEERAPUR, TEHSIL KARHAL (MADHYA

PRADESH)

…..PETITIONER

(BY MISS MADHULIKA JADOUN- ADVOCATE )

AND

1.

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT

OF REVENUE, VALLABH BHAWAN,

BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

2.

ADDL. COMMISSIONER CHAMBAL

DIVISION DIST. MORENA (MADHYA

PRADESH)

3.

SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER,

DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE DISTRICT

SHEOPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

4.

THE TEHSILDAR OFFICER,

2

DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

TEHSIL AND DISTRICT

SHEOPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

5.

KANTO BAI W/O LATE LEKHRA

R/O GRAM MEWADA DISTRICT

SHEOPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

…..RESPONDENTS

(BY SHRI DEEPAK KHOT – GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reserved on

21/03/2023

Delivered on

10/04/2023

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This petition coming on for hearing this day, Hon'ble Shri

Justice Milind Ramesh Phadke passed the following:

ORDER

1.

The present petition is directed against the order dated

14.10.2016 passed by respondent no.2, whereby the matter

relating to the land of the petitioner have not been decided on

merits and had been passed exparte by ignoring the material

available on record which is adversly affecting the rights of the

petitioner. Therefore, the same deserves to be directed to be

decided on merits.

2.

Brief facts leading to the controversy are that one land

bearing survery no.1499/2 ad-measuring 05 beegha and land

bearing survery no.1499/4 ad-measuring 07 beegha 7 biswa

3

situated at village Mewda, District Sheopur was received by the

husband of the petitioner in partition which was based on mutual

consent, vide order dated 30.05.2007 passed in case

no.14/10.05.2007 passed by respondent no.4. Being aggrieved by

the aforesaid order an appeal was preferred by present respondent

no.5 claiming herself to be the wife of late Shri Lekhraj. In the

appeal it was stated that she came to know about the partition

upon receiving of the copy of the order passed by respondent no.4

on 19.03.2012 and, thereafter, the aforesaid appeal was decided

exparte in absence of the husband of the petitioner as well as his

advocate vide order dated 17.06.2013, whereby the order dated

30.05.2007 passed by respondent no.4 Tehsildar was cancelled/set

aside and directions were issued to mutate the name of legal

representatives of Lekhraj in the revenue records. The husband of

the petitioner had challenged the aforesaid order before

respondent no.2 by way of an appeal which was registered as case

no.322/2012-13/appeal. Thereafter, the counsel appearing on

behalf of the husband of the petitioner in the appeal did not

appear before the appellate authority as is reflected from the order

dated 14.10.2016 and an exparte order was passed against him

and the appeal was dismissed. As there was no information with

regard to passing of the aforesaid order, it never came to the

knowledge of the petitioner as her husband who was contesting

the aforesaid appeal died on 01.06.2021 the present petition could

not be preferred in time.

4

3.

In the petition it was averred that the disputed land was

registered and mutated in the name of petitioner's husband on the

basis of mutual consent taken from Lekhraj, where Lekhraj

himself had participated in the proceedings before respondent

no.4 and there was no mis-representation or there was no use of

any unfair means which could have led to the conclusion that the

name of the husband of the petitioner was wrongly mutated in the

revenue records. It was also averred therein that in Civil Suit

No.18-A/2013, wherein the same land was in dispute and the title

and